L’évolution de la garde de l’enfant après la séparation des parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the separation of spouses, a family undergoes a reorganization process where the choice of a formula for child custody represents a major step, which child's living environment will depend on. Despite the importance of this form of custody, it seems, in the context of the crisis following separation, that decisions surrounding that choice are often taken haphazardly, without much consideration of various alternatives. On a different note, the family's profile at the time of the separation is bound to change following the pace of the child's and the parent's development. What may seem a relevant formula for a three year-old child may not necessarily be the case when the child turns eight. This article looks at the extent to which the child custody formula evolves to adjust itself to the changing needs of children and parents. Research focused on a sampling of 112 families separated for an average of four and a quarter years, with children aged 10 (N = 49) or adolescents of 15 years of age (N = 63). Data was compiled through a telephone questionnaire filled out by the parent who was the most committed to the child's custody. The description of the two categories of change (minor and major) was made according to the original child custody formula, the time lapse since the separation, the child's age and parental re-composition. Results point to three main trends: a) child custody arrangements do not evolve much over time; b) when there are changes, these are especially motivated by the needs of the parents; and c) the changes mainly result in reducing the frequency of contacts between the child and the parent without custody.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".